CRIMINAL LAW: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Substantial compliance of Commented [M1]:

Section 21 of RA 9165 Commented [M2]: REMEDIAL LAW TO? CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE? THEN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF WHAT?

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REY ANGELES Y NAMIL

G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018

(Martires, J.)

DOCTRINE: Before substantial compliance with the procedure is permitted, not only
must the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized be preserved, there must be
a justifiable ground for its noncompliance in the first place. The prosecution has a two-
fold duty of identifying any lapse in procedure and proving the existence of a sufficient
reason why it was not strictly followed.

FACTS:

Police Senior Inspector Amendalan that Angeles was selling shabu. They planned a buy
bust operation and coordinated with PDEA. Thereafter they conducted a buy bust
operation.

After Angeles agreed to sell him shabu and proposed a simultaneous exchange.
Thereafter the officers marked and placed under inventory the shabu seized. The
examination by the forensic chemist yielded the specimen positive for shabu. Commented [M3]: Chain of custody. Wag maging
detailed. Dapat PNP Crime laboratory.

The third and fourth links in the chain of custody are sorely lacking. PO2 Saez's lone
testimony leaves several questions unanswered. What happened to the drugs from the
time Relos received it from PO2 Saez until it was eventually transmitted to the forensic
chemist for examination? Were there other persons who came into contact with the
drugs before the forensic chemist subjected it to examination? Who handed the drugs
to the forensic chemist? How did Relos and the forensic chemist handle the drugs? Who
ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from Angeles to the trial court to be used as
evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of
the drugs recovered from Angeles remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm
of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly
prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never
compromised or tampered with.

Regional Trial Court convicted Angeles for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165. Court of Appeals affirmed that of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Was there substantial compliance of Sec 21 of R.A. 9165? Commented [M4]: Is there a substantial compliance of
Sec 21…?

RULING:

Yes. Generally, strict compliance with the above-mentioned procedure is required

because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident
or otherwise. However, the Court in numerous instances had allowed substantial
compliance with the procedure provided that the integrity of the drugs seized is
preserved.

In short, before substantial compliance with the procedure is permitted, not only must
the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized be preserved, there must be a
justifiable ground for its noncompliance in the first place. The prosecution has a two-
fold duty of identifying any lapse in procedure and proving the existence of a sufficient
reason why it was not strictly followed.

Broken links in the chain of custody and the minute amount recovered from Angeles,
shows that the integrity of the evidence seized and presented has been compromised.
Consequently, Angeles cannot be convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove the identity of the object of the crime,
i.e., the drugs seized. Commented [M5]: Just simplify. Conclusion sya ng Court.
Then, you need to simplify as end ng arguments mo sa
ruling. So please, don’t just merely copy and paste.